Best camera for low light social/documentary photography?

[jsrockit]

I’m a Fuji user ... If you like rangefinder shaped, autofocus digital cameras that feel almost like analog cameras, with small lenses, they are the only company fully committed to that. Of course there is the Leica CL digital and the Olympus Pen-F digital. Also the Leica Q and Q2 and the Sony RX1R II and a6000 series.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Fuji X-H1 or the Fuji X-T4. Both have IBIS. I prefer the former since it holds better in my hands. Get a fast Fuji lens to go with either of them. The most versatile lens, so far: the XF 2.8/16-55. Not cheap but worth the money.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I don't think that low light capability is the be all and end all for social documentary photography. As someone who shot many projects on film, having limits can be frustrating but forced me to be more creative. .....

I totally relate to Damaso's comment.Working within the constraints of normal film in low light situations ends up yielding better results for me. And, I am not one to do things the hard way when an easier one is available that achieves the same result. It is just that my results seem to be better with the restricted low light capability. Now I am one who is more interested in the emotional impact of my photos than the technical quality.

I have been looking back at my South Apopka Religion series where 7-8 years ago I spent half the Sundays for two years in churches shooting iso 400 b&w film at f1.4 1/30th with a 40mm Nokton. I have shot digital for the last 3 years. Technically better because of the higher iso availability but I don't think I am doing the emotional equivalent of what I once did. Not sure why, just believe that somehow working with that restricted low light capability resulted in better work for me.

 

[willie_901]

...
So what are the requirements?

It needs to have excellent high ISO performance to open up the possibility of using smaller apertures and faster shutter speeds.

It needs to be able to focus reliably and quickly on people's faces -preferably their eyes - in challengingly low light (all M's do this exceptionally well).

It needs to allow a good view of the subject for quick and responsive composition.

And it needs to be unobtrusive, quiet and easy to hold and pack - to make it easy to keep participating in the social situation.”

The Leica M10 meets all these requirements. The M240 technologies are less versatile in low light - they are at least one-stop less sensitive in low light [1]. The M246 Momochrom outperforms the M10 by ~ 1/3 stop.

These results also pertain to perceived image quality in shadow regions in brighter light. Differences in sensor assembly signal-to-noise affect shadow regions more than highlight regions. For a given camera the noise sources are constant but the exposure is not. These differences can be relevant in very bright light when image shadow region details are relevant to the photographers intent.

...So, what would the answer to this question be if you were starting from scratch today? Would a Leica M still be at the top of the list? What would the other options be?

Most contemporary digital cameras have excellent performance in low light (i.e. high camera ISO parameter settings). Some use dual conversion-gain technology sensor designs to optimize dynamic range performance in bright light and signal-to-noise ratios in low light. The data [1,2] show sensor area affects low-light SNR by about 1/2 stop when comparing m4/3, APS-C and 24 x 36 mm cameras. This means lens offerings and camera operation differences are more relevant than ever. It also means there are at least two dozen cameras that deserve consideration.

The options I chose for low-light, social-documentary photography were the FUJIFILM X-Pro 2 and X100T. The X-Pro 2 is about 1/2 stop less sensitive than the M10.[2] I use X-Pro 2 and X100T as I used my Zeiss Ikon M and Cannot QL17 G-III RF cameras. I use the OVF and operate the AF systems in focus and recompose mode. The FUJIFILMs are not RF cameras. Their OVFs use a reverse-Galilean optical finders. However the finder usage is identical. There are frame line estimates and several focus aid options. In my experience the newer FUJIFILM OVF systems perform well in very low light. However they do require some effort to master. With the X-Pro 2, I use the 23, 35 and 50mm f2, compact primes. I use raw files.

If one had a collection of M//LTM lenses it makes sense to use the M10 or a M240 variant. I doubt quick manual focusing in very low light is practical using non-M cameras. At the same time, I'm sure some RFF members succeed in low-light focusing of M//LTM lenses on non-M digital bodies.


1. Link to low light performance data.You need to deselect all the cameras except Leica in the figure legend and then zoom in on the column for 24 x 36 mm sensor area cameras. These estimates are computed from statical analyses of un-rendered raw-file data. These data only address the data SNR. Perceived color rendering and other subjective image quality traits are not considered.

2. Same link as above except select Fujifilm and Leica while zooming into the APS-C and 24 X 26mm sensor columns.

 

[Ste_S]

The Fuji x100 cameras always seem to come up as ideal options in this discussion, providing something of the Leica M viewing experience in more of a Barnack sized package - very much in the vein of the original portable high quality image making that transformed photography in the late 1920’s and the 1930’s.

Of course, the Fuji x100v now has a fold-out rear screen as well the OVF. How many of you have shifted to using fold-out rear screens for unobtrusive social/documentary work?

I expected to use my Sony A7riii in that way, but never got beyond a few rather clumsy and awkward attempts. Given that iPhone photo making (looking down at a screen and tapping it) has become so ubiquitous to be almost invisible - and at the same time, lifting a camera to your face when in a social gathering has become somewhat more noticeable - I thought using the waist-level view might work well. I think I’m too instinctively wedded to the rangefinder photographer’s mode of appearing to look directly and ‘openly’ at what they’re photographing for the looking down approach to feel anything other than rather shifty.

Have you used waist level viewing effectively for this kind of work? Or seen others doing so?

I sometimes feel that folding screens are used by people who are nervous about taking candid photography and don't want to make eye contact when taking a photograph. They're good for low and high angle shots though.

I do like screens flat on the body. They're quicker for taking candid grab shots and free up the camera from being fixed to eye level.